Data Article
Groundwater quality assessment for drinking and agriculture purposes in Abhar city, Iran
Khadijeh Jafari
a, Farzaneh Baghal Asghari
b,
Edris Hoseinzadeh
c, Zahra Heidari
d, Majid Radfard
e,f, Hossein Naja fi Saleh
f,n, Hossein Faraji
g,naDepartment of Environmental Health Engineering, Faculty of Health, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar Abbas, Iran
bDepartment of Environmental Health, School of public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
cDepartment of Environmental Health, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
dBachelor of Environmental Health, Department of Health, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
eHealth Research Center, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
fDepartment of Environmental Health Engineering, Torbat Heydariyeh University of Medical Sciences, Torbat Heydariyeh, Iran
gStudents Research Committee, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 2 March 2018 Received in revised form 13 May 2018
Accepted 18 May 2018 Available online 23 May 2018 Keywords:
Groundwater Agricultural indicator Drinking indicator Abhar
Iran
a b s t r a c t
The main objective of this study is to assess the quality of groundwater for drinking consume and agriculture purposes in abhar city. The analytical results shows higher concentration of electrical conductivity (100%), total hardness (66.7%), total dis- solved solids (40%), magnesium (23%), Sulfate (13.3%) which indi- cates signs of deterioration as per WHO and Iranian standards for drinking consume. Agricultural index, in terms of the hardness index, 73.3% of the samples in hard water category and 73.3% in sodium content were classified as good. Therefore, the main pro- blem in the agricultural sector was the total hardness Water was estimated. For the RSC index, all 100% of the samples were desir- able. In the physicochemical parameters of drinking water, 100% of the samples were undesirable in terms of electrical conductivity Contents lists available atScienceDirect
journal homepage:www.elsevier.com/locate/dib
Data in Brief
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2018.05.096
2352-3409/&2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
nCorresponding authors.
E-mail addresses:najafi[email protected](H.N. Saleh),[email protected](H. Faraji).
and 100% of the samples were desirable for sodium and chlorine parameters. Therefore, the main water problem in Abhar is related to electrical conductivity and water total hardness.
&2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open
access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Specifications Table
Subject area Chemistry
More speci
fic subject area Describe narrower subject area Type of data Tables and
figure
How data was acquired EC, pH and chloride were analyzed using multiple parameters ion meter model Thermo Orion 5 Star. Sulfate (SO
42) was measured using a double beam
UV
–Vis spectrophotometer model Perkin Elmer Lambda 35 by turbid- metric, stannous chloride, and molybdo silicate, respectively. Sodium, calcium and magnesium were analyzed using
flame photometer model CL-378 (Elico, India). Total hardness was determined by EDTA titrimetric method. TDS was measured gravimetrically). Agricultural indicator such as SAR, RSC, PI, KR, MH, and PS, % Na, SSP and TH were calculated using the Their formulas.
Data format Raw, Analyzed
Experimental factors All water samples in polyethylene bottles were stored in a dark place at room temperature until the metals analysis
Experimental features Determine the content levels of physical and chemical parameters Data source location Abhar, Zanjan province,Iran
Data accessibility Data are included in this article
Value of data
Determination of the Agricultural and drinking water indices including SAR, %Na, SSP,MH, KR,RSC, EC, Ca
2þ, Mg
þ2,pH, TDS, TH, HCO
3-, Na
þ, K
þ, Cl
, and SO
42in ground water was conducted in Abhar city, Iran.
The level of EC, TDS and total hardness in the water samples indicates that maximum of them are unsuitable for drinking consume.
Agricultural indices such as SAR and SSP indicated 100, 90% of samples in the studied area had SAR and SSP values within the excellent category respectively for irrigation purposes.
Data of this study can help to better understand the quality of groundwater in this area.
The present data d study recommends that regular monitoring of groundwater is essential to avoid major environmental threat
1. Data
Summary of the physical and chemical variables for the collected groundwater samples were
presented in
Table 1, The analytical results shows higher concentration of electrical conductivity(100%), total hardness (66.7%), total dissolved solids (40%), magnesium (23%), Soulphat (13.3%) which
indicates signs of deterioration as per WHO and Iranian standards for drinking consume
Table 2.As shown in
Tables 3,4, the calculated SAR, SSP, PI, MH, KR and Na% values were compared withthe groundwater quality classi
fication, where 100,90% of samples in the studied area had SAR and SSP values within the excellent category respectively for irrigation purposes.
Table 2
Quality of groundwater samples from Abhar city for drinking purpose compared with WHO and Iranian standard (1053)[1–7].
Parameter Desirable limit 2016 Year samples(%)
Within limits Exceed limits
pH 6.5–8.5 96.7 3.3
EC 300 (μmhos/cm) 0 100
TDS 500 (mg/L) 60 40
Total hardness 200 (mg/L) 33.3 66.7
SO42 200 (mg/L) 86.7 13.3
Cl 250 (mg/L) 100 0
Ca2þ 75 (mg/L) 86.7 13.3
Mg2þ 30 (mg/L) 76.7 23.3
Naþ 200 (mg/L) 100 0
Table 1
Water level and physico-chemical analyses of groundwater samples of study area collected during 2016 year.
Well no pH Naþ Mg2þ Ca2þ Cl Kþ CO3 HCO3 SO4 TDS EC T.H
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/l) (μmhos/cm) (mg/l)
P1 7.26 77.51 32.55 81.4 63.55 1.95 0 419.68 68.16 640 1045 338
P2 7.54 36.11 31.10 42.4 19.53 1.56 0 273.28 57.12 400 645 234
P3 7.66 119.37 19.00 58.2 60.71 1.17 0 195.2 220.8 640 998 224
P4 5.98 117.07 29.65 145.4 37.28 2.73 0 580.72 190.08 950 1516 486
P5 7.02 45.08 23.35 49.6 23.43 1.17 0 248.88 74.88 410 658 220
P6 6.97 73.37 33.03 50.4 35.15 2.34 0 346.48 83.04 540 875 262
P7 7.16 121.9 29.65 67.8 47.22 1.17 0 195.2 310.08 740 1153 292
P8 7.34 54.05 16.58 56.6 24.50 1.17 0 297.68 45.12 420 676 210
P9 7.27 55.2 25.29 68.6 45.09 1.95 0 307.44 74.88 510 817 276
P10 7.21 59.8 32.55 57.4 31.24 3.12 0 341.6 80.16 530 848 278
P11 7.58 64.63 30.61 44.8 27.34 2.73 0 307.44 81.12 490 786 238
P12 7.13 80.96 27.71 98.2 66.74 1.95 0 458.72 60 680 1098 360
P13 7.36 23.23 34.00 42.4 15.62 1.17 0 263.52 52.8 370 613 246
P14 7.22 62.1 26.26 55.2 32.31 1.56 0 326.96 61.92 490 788 246
P15 7.31 37.95 20.45 68.6 29.47 1.56 0 307.44 39.84 430 698 256
P16 7.26 67.39 21.90 63 27.34 1.56 0 297.68 104.16 510 815 248
P17 7.35 82.57 14.64 40.8 29.47 1.56 0 263.52 79.2 440 706 162
P18 7.32 25.99 9.68 39.2 13.85 0.78 0 180.56 24.96 250 402 138
P19 7.43 32.2 7.74 48 22.72 0.78 0 195.2 26.88 280 458 152
P20 7.51 41.4 7.74 46.4 14.56 1.17 0 195.2 52.8 310 494 148
P21 7.47 114.77 24.32 81.4 47.22 1.56 0 258.64 260.16 730 1143 304
P22 7.44 28.29 8.71 41.6 15.62 0.78 0 185.44 24 260 417 140
P23 7.33 105.8 20.45 59 34.44 1.17 0 278.16 172.8 610 962 232
P24 7.46 21.85 10.65 47.2 10.65 0.78 0 204.96 23.04 270 434 162
P25 7.07 46.92 21.42 60.6 31.24 1.56 0 287.92 57.12 440 707 240
P26 7.32 33.81 7.74 52 16.69 0.78 0 165.92 70.08 310 490 162
P27 7.24 29.9 10.16 57.4 25.56 0.78 0 190.32 54.24 320 518 186
P28 7.37 78.66 14.16 41.6 31.24 0.78 0 200.08 116.16 440 693 162
P29 7.36 126.73 33.03 65.4 51.12 1.95 0 263.52 271.2 760 1190 300
P30 7.42 25.3 8.23 39.2 15.62 0.78 0 175.68 19.2 240 390 132
Min 6.0 21.9 7.7 39.2 10.7 0.8 0 165.9 19.2 240.0 390.0 132.0
Max 7.7 126.7 34.0 145.4 66.7 3.1 0 580.7 310.1 950.0 1516.0 486.0
Ave 7.3 63.0 21.1 59.0 31.5 1.5 0 273.8 95.2 480.3 767.8 234.5
SD 0.29 33.30 9.25 21.54 15.16 0.65 0 92.46 78.88 176.78 277.06 77.64
2. Experimental design, materials and methods 2.1. Study area description
Abhar is one of the cities of Zanjan province and Abhar city center. The city with 99,285 people in 2016 is considered as the second most populated city of Zanjan province after Zanjan city. The height of Abhar city is 1540 m. The maximum relative humidity in the city is 94.4% and at least 23.3%. The average annual rainfall is 300 mm. This area is considered as a semi-cold and dry in Iran country
[8](Fig. 1).
2.2. Determination of the physico-chemical parameters concentration and agricultural indicators
In order to assess the physico-chemical parameters, a total of 30 samples taken from Abhar County (Fig. 1). Water samples were collected in a plastic container of 1-L capacity for detailed chemical analysis from all observation wells. These containers were washed thoroughly with distilled water and dried before being
filled with water samples. The containers were numbered serially along with a proper record of well/sample location, date, static water level, and prior to the sampling. Ground- water samples were collected after the well was subjected to pumping for at least 5
–10 min to obtain the composite sample. The pH and EC of the groundwater of the wells were measured by using HACH HQ40d and its in situ values are recorded
[9–15]. The samples were collected and stored below 4°C
Table 3Calculation of RSC, PI, KR, MH, Na%, SAR and SSP of groundwater for 2016 year.
Well ID RSC PI KR MH Na% SAR SSP
P1 0.12 59.16 0.50 39.79 33.60 1.83 33.27
P2 0.21 58.89 0.33 54.80 25.56 1.03 25.08
P3 1.28 72.17 1.16 35.04 53.81 3.47 53.67
P4 0.2 55.20 0.52 25.21 34.68 2.31 34.37
P5 0.33 62.48 0.44 43.76 31.09 1.32 30.77
P6 0.43 66.03 0.61 52.00 38.24 1.97 37.80
P7 2.64 63.63 0.91 41.95 47.72 3.10 47.58
P8 0.68 69.60 0.56 32.62 36.17 1.62 35.88
P9 0.48 58.65 0.43 37.86 30.74 1.44 30.30
P10 0.04 60.86 0.47 48.38 32.52 1.56 31.86
P11 0.27 66.69 0.59 53.04 37.65 1.82 37.07
P12 0.32 58.42 0.49 31.81 33.15 1.86 32.84
P13 0.61 51.99 0.20 57.00 17.42 0.64 17.00
P14 0.43 65.73 0.55 44.02 35.72 1.72 35.39
P15 0.08 57.53 0.32 33.01 24.82 1.03 24.37
P16 0.08 65.13 0.59 36.49 37.45 1.86 37.14
P17 1.07 82.87 1.10 37.23 52.76 2.82 52.49
P18 0.2 73.28 0.41 28.99 29.41 0.96 29.05
P19 0.16 71.82 0.46 21.05 31.84 1.14 31.53
P20 0.24 75.40 0.61 21.62 38.20 1.48 37.82
P21 1.84 63.68 0.82 33.06 45.27 2.86 45.08
P22 0.24 73.79 0.44 25.71 30.86 1.04 30.52
P23 0.08 72.89 0.99 36.42 49.95 3.02 49.78
P24 0.12 66.42 0.29 27.16 23.04 0.75 22.67
P25 0.08 61.59 0.43 36.88 30.23 1.32 29.82
P26 0.52 66.23 0.45 19.75 31.50 1.15 31.21
P27 0.59 61.20 0.35 22.64 26.24 0.95 25.95
P28 0.03 78.43 1.05 36.00 51.42 2.68 51.27
P29 1.68 65.93 0.92 45.50 48.10 3.18 47.87
P30 0.24 74.79 0.42 25.76 29.79 0.96 29.41
Min 2.64 51.99 0.20 19.75 17.42 0.64 17.00
Max 1.07 82.87 1.16 57.00 53.81 3.47 53.67
Ave 0.20 66.02 0.58 36.15 35.63 1.76 35.30
SD 0.78 7.28 0.26 10.40 9.31 0.81 9.38
and analyzed in the Centre for Water Resources Development and Management (CWRDM). Water samples collected in the
field for chemical constituents, such as TDS, TH, Ca
2þ, Mg
2þ, CO
32, HCO
3, Na
þ, Cl
and SO
42, were analyzed following the BIS standard. EC, pH and chloride (Cl
-) were
Table 4Classification of groundwater sample for irrigation use on the basic of EC, SAR, RSC, KR, SSP, PI, MH, Na%, T.H.
Parameters Range Water class Samples (%)
2016 Year
EC o250 Excellent Nil
250–750 Good 53.3
750–2250 Permissible 46.7
42250 Doubtful Nil
SAR 0–10 Excellent 100
10–18 Good Nil
18–26 Doubtful Nil
426 Unsuitable Nil
RSC o1.25 Good 100
1.25–2.5 Doubtful Nil
42.5 Unsuitable Nil
KR o1 suitable 90
1–2 Marginal suitable 10
42 Unsuitable Nil
SSP o50 Good 90
450 Unsuitable 10
PI 475 Class-I 10
25–75 Class-II 90
o25 Class-III Nil
MH o50 Suitable 86.7
450 Harmful &Unsuitable 13.3
Na% o20 Excellent 3.3
20–40 Good 73.3
40–60 Permissible 23.4
60–80 Doubtful Nil
480 Unsuitable Nil
T.H o75 Soft Nil
75–150 Moderately Hard 13.3
150–300 Hard 73.3
4300 Very Hard 13.4
Fig. 1. Location of the study area in Abhar city, Zanjan province, Iran.
analyzed using multiple parameters ion meter model Thermo Orion 5 Star. Sulfate (SO4
42) was measured using a double beam UV
–Vis spectrophotometer model Perkin Elmer Lambda 35 by turbid- metric, stannous chloride, and molybdosilicate, respectively. Sodium (Na
þ), calcium (Ca
2þ) and magnesium (Mg
2þ) were analyzed using
flame photometer model CL-378 (Elico, India). Total hard- ness was determined by EDTA titrimetric method
[1,16–18]. TDS was measured gravimetrically andAgricultural indicator such as SAR, RSC, PI, KR, and MH, % Na, SSP and TH were calculated by their formulas presented in
Table 5.Acknowledgements
The authors want to thank the respected management of Iran's water resources for their supports from authors.
Transparency document. Supporting information
Transparency data associated with this article can be found in the online version at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2018.05.096.
References
[1]M. Yousefi, H. NajafiSaleh, A.A. Mohammad, A.H. Mahvi, M. Ghadrpoori, H. Suleimani, Data on water quality index for the groundwater in rural area Neyshabur County, Razavi province, Iran, Data Brief 15 (2017) 901–907.
[2] A. Abbasnia, N. Yousefi, A.H. Mahvi, R. Nabizadeh, M. Radfard, M. Yousefi, M. Alimohammadi, Evaluation of groundwater quality using water quality index and its suitability for assessing water for drinking and irrigation purposes; case study of Sistan and Baluchistan province (Iran), Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess.: Int. J. (2018),http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2018.1458596.
[3] M. Radfard, M. Yunesian, R. Nabizadeh Nodehi, H. Biglari, M. Hadi, N. Yosefi, M. Yousefi, A. Abbasnia, A.H. Mahvi, Drinking water quality and Arsenic health risk assessment in Sistan-and-Baluchestan, Southeastern province Iran, Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess.: Int. J. (2018),http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2018.1458210.
[4]M. Yousefi, M. Ghoochani, A.H. Mahvi, Health risk assessment tofluoride in drinking water of rural residents living in the Poldasht city, Northwest of Iran, Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 148 (2018) 426–430.
[5]M. Yousefi, A.A. Mohammadi, M. Yaseri, A.H. Mahvi, Epidemiology offluoride and its contribution to fertility, infertility, and abortion: an ecological study in West Azerbaijan Province, Poldasht County, Iran, Fluoride 50 (2017) 343–353.
[6]F.B. Asghari, J. Jaafari, M. Yousefi, A.A. Mohammadi, R. Dehghanzadeh, Evaluation of water corrosion, scaling extent and heterotrophic plate count bacteria in asbestos and polyethylene pipes in drinking water distribution system, Hum. Ecol.
Risk Assess.: Int. J. 24 (2018) 1138–1149.
[7]M. Yousefi, H.N. Saleh, M. Yaseri, A.H. Mahvi, H. Soleimani, Z. Saeedi, et al., Data on microbiological quality assessment of rural drinking water supplies in Poldasht county, Data Brief 17 (2018) 763–769.
[8](a) M. Yousefi, M.H. Dehghani, S.M. Nasab, V. Taghavimanesh, S. Nazmara, A.A. Mohammadi, Data on trend changes of drinking groundwater resources quality: a case study in Abhar, Data Brief 17 (2018) 424–430;
(b) H. Soleimani, A. Abbasnia, M. Yousefi, A.A. Mohammadi, F.C. Khorasgani, Data on assessment of groundwater quality for drinking and irrigation in rural area Sarpol-e Zahab city, Kermanshah province, Iran, Data Brief 17 (2018) 148–156.
Table 5
Summary of water quality indices in present study[1].
Indices Formula
Residual sodium carbonate (RSC) RSC¼(CO32þHCO3)þ(Ca2þþMg2þ)
Permeability index (PI) PI¼NaþKþ ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
pHCO3 CaþMgþNaþK100
Kelly's ratio (KR) KR¼CaþNaMg
Magnesium hazard(MH) MH¼CaþMgMg100
Sodium percentage (Na %) Na%¼CaþMgþNaþKNaþK 100
Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) SAR¼ ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiNa
ðCaþMgÞ=2
p 100
Soluble sodium percentage (SSP) SSP¼CaþMgþNaNa 100
[9]F.B. Asghari, A.A. Mohammadi, M.H. Dehghani, Data on assessment of groundwater quality with application of ArcGIS in Zanjan, Iran, Data Brief 18 (2018) 375–379.
[10]V. Kazemi Moghadam, M. Yousefi, A. Khosravi, M. Yaseri, A.H. Mahvi, M. Hadei, A.A. Mohammadi, Z. Robati, A. Mokamel, High concentration offluoride can be increased risk of abortion, Biol. Trace Elem. Res. (2018).
[11]M. Yousefi, M. Yaseri, R. Nabizadeh, E. Hooshmand, M. Jalilzadeh, A.H. Mahvi, A.A. Mohammadi, Association of hyper- tension, body mass index and waist circumference withfluoride intake; water drinking in residents offluoride endemic areas, Iran, Biol. Trace Elem. Res. (2018).
[13]H.N. Saleh, M.H. Dehghani, R. Nabizadeh, A.H. Mahvi, F. Hossein, M. Ghaderpoori, et al., Data on the acid black 1 dye adsorbtion from aqueous solutions by low-cost adsorbent-Cerastoderma lamarcki shell collected from the northern coast of Caspian Sea, Data Brief 17 (2018) 774–780.
[14]M. Mirzabeygi, M. Yousefi, H. Soleimani, A.A. Mohammadi, A.H. Mahvi, A. Abbasnia, The concentration data offluoride and health risk assessment in drinking water in the Ardakan city of Yazd province, Iran, Data Brief 18 (2018) 40–46.
[15]A.A. Mohammadi, M. Yousefi, M. Yaseri, M. Jalilzadeh, A.H. Mahvi, Skeletalfluorosis in relation to drinking water in rural areas of West Azerbaijan, Iran, Sci. Rep. 7 (2017) 17300.
[16]A. Abbasnia, M. Alimohammadi, A.H. Mahvi, R. Nabizadeh, M. Yousefi, A.A. Mohammadi, H. Pasalari H, M. Mirzabeigi, Assessment of groundwater quality and evaluation of scaling and corrosiveness potential of drinking water samples in villages of Chabahr city, Sistan and Baluchistan province in Iran, Data Brief 16 (2018) 182–192.
[17]A.A. Mohammadi, K. Yaghmaeian, H. Faraji, R. Nabizadeh, M.H. Dehghani, J.K. Khaili, et al., Temporal and spatial variation of chemical parameter concentration in drinking water resources of Bandar-e Gaz City using geographic information system, Desalination Water Treat. 68 (2017) 170–176.
[18]A. Takdastana, M. Mirzabeygi (Radfard), M. Yousefi, A. Abbasnia, R. Khodadadia, A.H. Mahvi, D. Jalili Naghan, Neuro-fuzzy inference system Prediction of stability indices and Sodium absorption ratio in Lordegan rural drinking water resources in west Iran, Data Brief 18 (2018) 255–261.
